They’re sneaky. They lie. They’re evil. They think everyone else is an animal and therefore without souls. They’re the most despicable people on the planet to say the least. These evil doers are behind Hollywood, the porn industry, race mixing,the homosexual agenda …. you name it … and they’re the ones orchestrating it.

It took the United States government nearly 10 years to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden in retribution for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Over that same period, Muslims struggled to overcome guilt by association for the criminal acts of bin Laden. Meanwhile, all Americans were forced to give up civil liberties in a purported exchange for more security. 

As part of its concerted war on terror, the U.S. government under both presidents Bush and Obama directed most national security resources toward terrorism committed by Muslims, while the likes of Jared Lee Loughner and Joseph Stack attacked undetected. Frightening images of Muslim terrorists persuaded the American public that spending billions of dollars on occupying Iraq and Afghanistan was necessary despite burgeoning economic ills at home.

Compromising our civil liberties also became an acceptable sacrifice to protect us from Osama bin Laden’s murderous gang. Body scan machines electronically strip search us at nearly every airport. Fusion centers across the country gather intelligence on average Americans to deposit into massive databases monitored by the government. Tens of thousands of warrantless national security letters are issued every year to obtain information about our financial and political lives absent evidence of criminal activity. And police departments have shifted resources from necessary crime-fighting to mapping communities based on their religious faiths and ethnic origins under the auspices of protecting national security.

There remain many questions about whether such infringements on our civil liberties at home led to the weakening of al-Qaida abroad and the eventual elimination of Osama bin Laden. But one thing is clear. The war on terror was a remarkable success in vilifying more than 6 million people in America of various ethnic, racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently reported a disproportionately high incidence of religious discrimination against Muslim employees compared to their percentage of the population. Some Muslim women donning head scarves are not only excluded from employment but also physically assaulted on account of their faith. Within a three-month period at the end of 2010, five Muslim women in Staten Island, N.Y., Seattle, Wash., and Columbus, Ohio, were physically attacked while called terrorists. Even constructing a house of worship is perceived by a significant number of Americans as an illicit and anti-American activity that should be prohibited by law.

School bullying against Muslim students is also on the rise, with the most recent occurring the day after Osama bin Laden was killed when a teacher at Clear Brook High School in Friendswood humiliated a Muslim female student by stating, “I bet you are grieving … about your uncle’s death.” A few days later three Muslim men were kicked off of commercial flights because the pilot felt uncomfortable with their Islamic garb and beards. Ironically, the men were headed to a conference in North Carolina addressing the rise of anti-Muslim bigotry in America.

While one hopes the death of Osama bin Laden and the significant weakening of al-Qaida will reverse these trends, the plane evictions and verbal assault of the Houston-area student show otherwise. It will likely take a concerted effort by all Americans to dismantle the deeply entrenched stereotypes and turn a new page. One where we no longer impute the criminality of Osama bin Laden, dead or alive, onto the majority of law-abiding Muslims in America. When civil liberties of all Americans are not so easily abandoned based on fear of a few terrorists holed up somewhere across the world.

Dismantling these stereotypes is more than simply pursuing a politically correct post-racial agenda. Nor are the benefits limited to Muslims in America. Debunking these stereotypes denies those seeking to take away Americans’ civil liberties an important tool. No longer can they rely on false stereotypes of Muslims to reauthorize the Patriot Act, build more spy centers and eviscerate our privacy.

Now that Osama bin Laden lies dead at the bottom of the sea, hopefully we can finally put to rest the stereotypes and get to work on taking back our rights.

Sahar Aziz, an incoming associate professor of law at Texas Wesleyan University School of Law, is the author of a forthcoming paper titled “Caught in a Preventive Paradigm Ten Years Later: Selective Counterterrorism Against Arabs, Muslims and South Asians.” She is also a legal fellow for the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding and a former adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center. This article was previously published in the Houston Chronicle.
 Putrajaya will look to anti-terrorism laws from the West as models to replace the Internal Security Act (ISA) which is to be repealed under a raft of reforms announced by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said the Patriot Act in the United States, the Anti-terrorism Act in the UK and Australia will be considered in drawing up new security laws for Malaysia.
“All these can be examples for us to foil potential terrorist acts,” he told reporters after the prime minister’s address to the nation last night.
“It is another chapter of the journey which we announced earlier and a lot of work has now got to go into the two Acts that were announced and actually the balancing between national interest and security and civil liberties is the balance that we need to achieve,” he added.
The home minister said the two new Acts proposed to replace the ISA will cover terrorism and national security. Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said the new laws will still allow detention without trial.
Hishammuddin(picture) had denied on Tuesday speculation that the government will abolish the ISA — a possible indication of resistance among security officials and right-wing elements in Umno to purported plans by the prime minister to repeal the controversial law.
Despite talk coming from sources in Najib’s office in recentdays that the PM was mulling a repeal of the law which provides for detention without trial, the home minister insisted that the law would only be “adjusted and amended.”
“So as far as KDN (Home Ministry) is concerned, we were fully aware that this transformation needed to be made but the two years that it took us to get here is finding the balance and the events that took place around the world, events that took place in Malaysia helped us in shaping what the prime minister announced today,” Hishammuddin said.
He reiterated Najib’s remarks, saying that the country was no longer in a state of emergency and all the Emergency Declarations will be looked into.
“Those are related to the emergency conditions and that was the basic premise of what the prime minister said that we are no longer in a state of emergency.
“So not only just ordinances but even institutions and agencies that fall within emergency ordinances have to be relooked at,” he said.
Hishammuddin said as far as the emergency ordinances were concerned, that has only been debated recently and the Attorney-General’s office as well as other agencies have to be consulted.
“Because what PM announced today is the general principles operationally, it’s got to be taken into account later.
“Specific ordinances, once we have consulted with the Attorney-General, once we have consulted with the agencies involved, then we will come out and actually state,” he said when asked if the other detention without trial laws will be repealed as well.
He stressed that the abolishment of the law was not a “political election promise”.
The ruling Barisan Nasional coalition is seeking to appease voters who abandoned it during 2008 polls on complaints over the slow pace of promised reforms.
On Monday, The Malaysian Insider reported that Najib could dismantle the ISA as early as this week as he seeks to gain new momentum ahead of a general election expected within a year.
A legacy of Malaysia’s fight against communists, the ISA allows for the indefinite detention of people seen as a threat to national security but critics say it has become little more than a government tool to quell dissent.
Najib released 13 detainees under the ISA when he assumed office.

The Obama administration’s legal team is split over how much latitude the United States has to kill Islamist militants in Yemen and Somalia, a question that could define the limits of the war against Al Qaeda and its allies, according to administration and Congressional officials.
The debate, according to officials familiar with the deliberations, centers on whether the United States may take aim at only a handful of high-level leaders of militant groups who are personally linked to plots to attack the United States or whether it may also attack the thousands of low-level foot soldiers focused on parochial concerns: controlling the essentially ungoverned lands near the Gulf of Aden, which separates the countries.

The dispute over limits on the use of lethal force in the region — whether from drone strikes, cruise missiles or commando raids — has divided the State Department and the Pentagon for months, although to date it remains a merely theoretical disagreement. Current administration policy is to attack only “high-value individuals” in the region, as it has tried to do about a dozen times.

But the unresolved question is whether the administration can escalate attacks if it wants to against rank-and-file members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, based in Yemen, and the Somalia-based Shabab. The answer could lay the groundwork for a shift in the fight against terrorists as the original Al Qaeda, operating out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, grows weaker. That organization has been crippled by the killing of Osama bin Laden and by a fierce campaign of drone strikes in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where the legal authority to attack militants who are battling United States forces in adjoining Afghanistan is not disputed inside the administration.

One senior official played down the disagreement on Thursday, characterizing it as a difference in policy emphasis, not legal views. Defense Department lawyers are trying to maintain maximum theoretical flexibility, while State Department lawyers are trying to reach out to European allies who think that there is no armed conflict, for legal purposes, outside of Afghanistan, and that the United States has a right to take action elsewhere only in self-defense, the official said.

But other officials insisted that the administration lawyers disagreed on the underlying legal authority of the United States to carry out such strikes.

Robert Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin who specializes in the laws of war, said the dispute reflected widespread disagreement about how to apply rules written for traditional wars to a conflict against a splintered network of terrorists — and fears that it could lead to an unending and unconstrained “global” war.

“It’s a tangled mess because the law is unsettled,” Professor Chesney said. “Do the rules vary from location to location? Does the armed conflict exist only in the current combat zone, such as Afghanistan, or does it follow wherever participants may go? Who counts as a party to the conflict? There’s a lot at stake in these debates.”

Counterterrorism officials have portrayed Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — which was responsible for the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009 — as an affiliate of Al Qaeda that may be more dangerous now than the remnants of the original group. Such officials have also expressed worry about the Shabab, though that group is generally more focused on local issues and has not been accused of attacking the United States.

In Pakistan, the United States has struck at Al Qaeda in part through “signature” strikes — those that are aimed at killing clusters of people whose identities are not known, but who are deemed likely members of a militant group based on patterns like training in terrorist camps. The dispute over targeting could affect whether that tactic might someday be used in Yemen and Somalia, too.

The Defense Department’s general counsel, Jeh C. Johnson, has argued that the United States could significantly widen its targeting, officials said. His view, they explained, is that if a group has aligned itself with Al Qaeda against Americans, the United States can take aim at any of its combatants, especially in a country that is unable or unwilling to suppress them.
The State Department’s top lawyer, Harold H. Koh, has agreed that the armed conflict with Al Qaeda is not limited to the battlefield theater of Afghanistan and adjoining parts of Pakistan. But, officials say, he has also contended that international law imposes additional constraints on the use of force elsewhere. To kill people elsewhere, he has said, the United States must be able to justify the act as necessary for its self-defense — meaning it should focus only on individuals plotting to attack the United States.

The fate of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, hangs heavily over the targeting debate, officials said. In several habeas corpus lawsuits, judges have approved the detention of Qaeda suspects who were captured far from the Afghan battlefield, as well as detainees who were deemed members of a force that was merely “associated” with Al Qaeda. One part of the dispute is the extent to which rulings about detention are relevant to the targeting law.

Congress, too, may influence the outcome of the debate. It is considering, as part of a pending defense bill, a new authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda and its associates. A version of the provision proposed by the House Armed Forces Committee would establish an expansive standard for the categories of groups that the United States may single out for military action, potentially making it easier for the United States to kill large numbers of low-level militants in places like Somalia.

In an interview, Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said that he supported the House version and that he would go further. He said he would offer an amendment that would explicitly authorize the use of force against a list of specific groups including the Shabab, as well as set up a mechanism to add further groups to the list if they take certain “overt acts.”

“This is a worldwide conflict without borders,” Mr. Graham argued. “Restricting the definition of the battlefield and restricting the definition of the enemy allows the enemy to regenerate and doesn’t deter people who are on the fence.”

US military intervention in Grenada enabled Ronald Reagan to distract public opinion from demanding a retaliatory and potentially catastrophic response, to the death of 263 marines and sailors in Lebanon [GALLO/GETTY]

Twin Towers
Two years from now the staffs of Vanity Fair and the New Yorker will move into the most haunted building in the world.  There, the elite of American celebrity photographers, gossip columnists, and magazine journalists may meet some macabre new muses.
Aloft in the upper stories of 1 World Trade Center (where Condé Nast publishing has signed the biggest lease), they will gaze out their windows at that ghostly void, just a few yards away, where 658 doomed employees of Cantor Fitzgerald were sitting at their desks at 8:46 AM, September 11, 2001.
Not to worry: The “Freedom Tower” – the boosters reassure us – will be an enduring consolation to the families of 9/11’s martyrs as well as an icon of civic and national renaissance. Not to mention its dramatic resurrection of property values in the neighbourhood.  (I confess that I find this conflation of real-estate speculation with sublime memorial unnerving: like proposing to build a yacht marina over the sunken Arizona or a Katrina theme park in the Lower Ninth Ward.)
One World Trade Center, in the original design, was also meant to restore vertical architectural supremacy to Manhattan and to be the tallest building in the world.  This global phallic rivalry was won instead by Dubai’s Burj Khalifa super-tower, completed last year and twice as high as the Empire State Building.
In a few years Dubai, however, will have to surrender the gold cup to Saudi Arabia and the bin Laden family.
Financed by Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who revels in being known as the “Arabian Warren Buffet,” the planned Kingdom Tower in Jeddah — the ultimate hyperbole for Saudi despotism — will pierce the clouds along the Red Sea coastline at an incredible altitude of one full kilometre (3,281 feet).
One World Trade Center, on the other hand, will max out at 1,776 feet above the Hudson.  (Conspiracy theorists can obsess over this coincidence: the number of feet higher the Saudi Arabian tower will be than the American one almost exactly equals the number of people who died in the North Tower of the WTC in 2001.)
With little publicity, the initial billion-dollar contract for the Jeddah spire was awarded by Prince Al-Waleed to the Arab world’s mega-builders and skyscraper experts — the Bin Laden Group.  It may keep their family name alive for centuries to come.
Ten years ago, lower Manhattan became the Sarajevo of the War on Terrorism.  Although conscience recoils against making any moral equation between the assassination of a single Archduke and his wife on June 28, 1914, and the slaughter of almost 3,000 New Yorkers, the analogy otherwise is eerily apt.
In both cases, a small network of peripheral but well-connected conspirators, ennobled in their own eyes by the bitter grievances of their region, attacked a major symbol of the responsible empire.  The outrages were deliberately aimed to detonate larger, cataclysmic conflicts, and in this respect, were successful beyond the darkest imagining of the plotters.
However, the magnitudes of the resulting geopolitical explosions were not simple functions of the notoriety of the acts themselves.  For example, in Europe between 1890 and 1940, more than two dozen heads of state were assassinated, including the kings of Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria, an empress of Austria, three Spanish prime ministers, two presidents of France, and so on. But apart from the murder of Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo, none of these events instigated a war.
Likewise, a single suicide bomber in a truck killed 241 US Marines and sailors at their barracks at the Beirut Airport in 1983.  (58 French paratroopers were killed by another suicide bomber the same day.)  A Democratic president almost certainly would have been pressured into massive retaliation or full-scale intervention in the Lebanese civil war, but President Reagan – very shrewdly – distracted the public with an invasion of tiny Grenada, while quietly withdrawing the rest of his Marines from the Eastern Mediterranean.
If Sarajevo and the World Trade Center, in contrast, unleashed global carnage and chaos, it was because a de factocollusion existed between the attackers and the attacked.  I’m not referring to mythical British plots in the Balkans or Mossad agents blowing up the Twin Towers, but simply to well-known facts: by 1912, the Imperial German General Staff had already decided to exploit the first opportunity to make war, and powerful neocons around George W. Bush were lobbying for the overthrow of the regimes in Baghdad and Tehran even before the last hanging chad had been counted in Florida in 2000.
Both the Hohenzollerns and the Texans were in search of a casus belli that would legitimate military intervention and silence domestic opposition.
Prussian militarism, of course, was punctually accommodated by the Black Hand – a terrorist group sponsored by the Serbian general staff — that assassinated the Archduke and his wife, while al-Qaeda’s horror show in lower Manhattan consecrated the divine right of the White House to torture, secretly imprison, and kill by remote control.
At the time, it seemed almost as if Bush and Cheney had staged a coup d’état against the Constitution.  Yet they could cynically but accurately point to a whole catalogue of precedents.
“Innocence” and Intervention
To put it bluntly, every single chapter in the history of the extension of US power has opened with the same sentence: “Innocent Americans were treacherously attacked…”
Remember the Maine in Havana harbour in 1898 (274 dead)?
The Lusitania torpedoed by a German U-boat in 1915 (1,198 drowned, including 128 Americans)?
Pancho Villa’s raid on Columbus, New Mexico, in 1916 (18 U.S citizens killed)?
Pearl Harbor (2,402 dead)?
Same sneak attack, same righteous national outrage. Same pretext for clandestine agendas.
In addition, historians will also recall the besieged legation in Peking (1899), Emilio Aguinaldo’s alleged perfidy outside Manila (1899), various crimes against American banks and businessmen in Central America and the Caribbean (1900-1930), the Japanese bombing of the USS Panay in 1938, the Chinese army’s crossing of the Yalu River into Korea (1950), the Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam (1964), the North Korean capture of the Pueblo (1968), the Cambodian seisure of the Mayaguez (1975), the U.S. Embassy hostages in Tehran (1979), the imperiled medical students in Grenada (1983), the harassed American soldiers in Panama (1989), and so on.
This list barely scratches the surface: the synchronisation of self-pity and intervention in US history is relentless.
In the name of “innocent Americans,” the United States annexed Hawaii and Puerto Rico; colonised the Philippines; punished nationalism in North Africa and China; invaded Mexico (twice); sent a generation to the killing fields of France (and imprisoned dissenters at home); massacred patriots in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua; annihilated Japanese cities; bombed Korea and Indochina into rubble; buttressed military dictatorships in Latin America; and became Israel’s partner in the routine murder of Arab civilians.
Decline and Fall?
Someday – perhaps sooner than we think – a new Edward Gibbon in China or India will surely sit down to write The History of the Decline and Fall of the American Empire.  Hopefully it will be but one volume in a larger, more progressive oeuvre – The Renaissance of Asia perhaps – and not an obituary for a human future sucked into America’s grasping void.
I think she’ll probably classify self-righteous American “innocence” as one of the most toxic tributaries of national decline, with President Obama as its highest incarnation.  Indeed, from the perspective of the future, which will be deemed the greater crime: to have created the Guantanamo nightmare in the first place, or to have preserved it in contempt of global popular opinion and one’s own campaign promises?
Obama, who was elected to bring the troops home, close the gulags, and restore the Bill of Rights, has in fact become the chief curator of the Bush legacy: a born-again convert to special ops, killer drones, immense intelligence budgets, Orwellian surveillance technology, secret jails, and the superhero cult of former general, now CIA Director David Petraeus.
Our “antiwar” president, in fact, may be taking US power deeper into the darkness than any of us dare to imagine.  And the more fervently Obama embraces his role as commander in chief of the Delta Force and Navy Seals, the less likely it becomes that future Democrats will dare to reform the Patriot Act or challenge the presidential prerogative to murder and incarcerate America’s enemies in secret.
Enmired in wars with phantoms, Washington has been blindsided by every major trend of the last decade.  It completely misread the real yearnings of the Arab street and the significance of mainstream Islamic populism, ignored the emergence of Turkey and Brazil as independent powers, forgot Africa, and lost much of its leverage with Germany as well as with Israel’s increasingly arrogant reactionaries.  Most importantly, Washington has failed to develop any coherent policy framework for its relationship with China, its main creditor and most important rival.
From a Chinese standpoint (assumedly the perspective of our future Ms. Gibbon), the United States is showing incipient symptoms of being a failed state.  When Xinhua, the semi-official Chinese news agency, scolds the US Congress for being “dangerously irresponsible” in debt negotiations, or when senior Chinese leaders openly worry about the stability of American political and economic institutions, the shoe is truly on the other foot.  Especially when standing in the wings, bibles in hand, are the mad spawn of 9/11 – the Republican presidential candidates

It was Friday, 22nd July. Apparently it was the land of a peaceful country, Norway in Europe. In Oslo, the capital city of Norway, outside the office of the Prime Minister a bomb is exploded. After sometime, in an island, a man opens fire indiscriminately and kills more than 90 persons. 

On Saturday, newspapers throughout the world and the TV channels published the news of the bomb blast and firing later. In the next captions of the news, they made Al-Qaida and the Islamic extremists responsible for these acts. It was very easy to link the terrorist activity to the Muslims and the Islamic terrorists. First of all, it was Friday, secondly it was a well developed European country. According to the Universal fashion, there was every material available to link such an act of violence with the Muslims. After the preliminary analysis, it was revealed that Mr. Will Mc Cants Security Advisor of the State Dept. of USA was responsible for the efforts made by the international news agencies to link Muslims with the bomb blast of Norway. He was the man associated earlier with the state Dept. for dealing with terrorism. He made Muslims responsible without testifying or without waiting for further details. America, depending upon such advisors has initiated war against terrorism in many countries for the past ten years.

This is the section of people which looks at the Muslims with suspicion and only their reviews are broadcast which pollute the minds of the people all over the world.

On Sunday, the 24th July 2011, Urdu media clarified that for these terrorist activities, “Muslim terrorists” are not responsible but it is the activity of a “Christian Terrorist”. I had used the term “Christian terrorism” in the caption of one of my article published in the year 2007, entitled to “can the Muslim be a terrorist and not a Christian?”

On 17th April 2007 a gunner killed in the firing at Virginia Technological University in which 32 persons were killed. This news was also published by international news agencies with great importance. The point at which I would like to draw the attention of the readers is that the gunner who opened fire at Virginia University was an orthodox Christian. At the time of reporting this news, nowhere the religion of this man was mentioned. Had he been a Muslim, his religion would have been mentioned especially that a Muslim terrorist has killed 32 person. I am convinced that the forces hostile to Islam have become so handicapped that they are not able to identify the danger which is going to cause damage to them.

In America and Europe the hoax of Muslim terrorism was propagated vehemently such that all those in whose names “Mohammed” was found and those who had grown beards on their faces and the ladies who had covered their bodies with the veils were presumed to be bosing a great danger to their security. Separate ques were arranged for the Muslims at the immigration counters at the airports. Laws were enacted to detain the Muslims at any time and to arrest them immediately on some pretext or the other. Today, the world has witnessed that the gunner who killed more than 90 innocent persons was not a Muslim but a Christian.

The extremist Christian terrorist whom the Norway police was forced to arrest did not hide his aims. The terrorist Anders Behring Breivik prepared a detailed manifesto of his anti-Muslim activities spreading over nearly 1,500 pages which he displayed on the internet. But the security agencies have concentrated all their resources only on the Muslims. Whatever the Non-Muslims write or do, it was deemed to be harmless. This is what the news agencies of Norway have done. The state of affairs of our security agencies is almost the same. Whether it is Sadhavi Pragya Singh Thakur or Swamy Aseemanand they were not exposed on the radars of our security agencies until they finished their workds.

It is an incident of the third week of July 2011. Hyderabad city police found out the shifting of the explosive material weighting two quintals. Incidentally, both the persons who transported the explosive material were the Non-Muslims, otherwise our media persons and the security agencies would have put the captions like “two Muslims are arrested while transporting two quintals of explosive material”. Since the person who were caught were the Non-Muslims, the news caption was simply “two persons were arrested while transporting explosive material”. If Muslims are involved in any unpleasant incident, it is deemed obligatory to mention their religion but if the same thing is done by the Non-Muslims, it becomes unnecessary to mention their religion. Why is it so?

Even if the Muslims are arrested under the charges of terrorism, the world media and the American newspapers would create a panic about terrorism. When the terrorist act of Norway was exposed, the reaction of the American newspapers was very interesting. Ms. Yasmeen Jameel, transmitted the editorial of the “Daily News” from Washington on the Urdu website of the “Voice of America”. While dealing with the terrorist incident of Norway, the editorial raised a natural question that why have such incidents taken place in a peaceful country like Norway which is the seat of Nobel prize for peace.

The editorial further writes that the police has arrested a 32 year old man whose terrorist activity is suspected to be linked with the rightist extremism. What kind of journalism is this? A Christian youth is openly declaring that he wants to eradicate Muslims from Europe. He has presented his manifesto containing 1,500 pages. Even after this, the man does not seem to be a terrorist and the newspaper writes that his terrorism resembles the violent activities of the rightist extremists. It means that the American newspaper avoids writing “terrorist” to Anders and says that he is performing activities like a terrorist.

This was the attitude of the hostile Islamicists abroad. If we review the position in our country can we call our attitude correct? Till very recently, we used to protest to link terrorism with religion and we never used to tired of saying that the terrorism has no religion. How can then we mention the religion of the Non-Muslim who is involved in terrorist activities.

It is a fact that the terrorist is neither a Muslim nor a Hindu or a Christian. The religion of the Terrorist is terrorism. It is, therefore, obligatory for the media to get rid of its so-called journalist bias (Journalistic terrorism) and decide that form today onwards, whosoever is involved in terrorist actitivites, he will be called only the follower of terrorism. Even if his religious identity is to be mentioned, it will be mentioned only terrorism. Since a person who resorts to terrorism, gives up the teachings of his religion and adopts terrorism. He will be identified would be as a terrorist alone and his religion will be terrorism.

Mr. Sadanand Patwardhan in one of his articles wrote that out of the 29 incidents of terrorism in 2009 only one was attributed to the Muslims. In the year 2008, there were 525 incidences of terrorism and not a single incident was attributed to the Muslims. But it is seen that not only investigating agencies but even the media agencies also resort to a biased and narrow-minded view towards the Muslims.

There is only one solution to the problem of journalistic terrorism. It is that the Muslims should come forward in the filed of journalism and work in it. If a Christian youth indulges in a terrorist act, we can satisfy ourselves by writing him a Christian terrorist, but this is not the solution to the problem. In the same way for a Hindu who resorts to terrorism, if we write Hindu terrorism, that is not going to solve our problem.

We must congratulate the Norway police that they have arrested Anders alive. Had he become the target of the Police bullets, we don’t know the media would have tried its level best to prove him a Muslim terrorist. It is a fact that the savour is greater than the killer. Are we able to comprehend the message given by the greatest entity called Allah – The Almighty who gives this message in the present circumstances? If not, we will also be turned down like a monthly page of a certain calendar which has passed.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s